The ongoing dispute about the Dakota Access pipeline may be hard to settle peacefully because the two sides don't even agree on what they're arguing about. That's the takeaway from a forum this week at SMU that included highly credentialed supporters of the pipeline and highly credentialed representatives of the Native American opposition.

The discussion was civil overall, in spite of emotions on both sides. Both sides agreed the proposed pipeline was probably safer that trucks and trains, the current method of transporting oil from the Bakken fields in North Dakota. But what does that mean?

The 1,172-mile, $3.78 billion project is the work of Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners. It was 70 percent finished earlier this month when federal authorities ordered a shutdown on several miles of the route because of objections raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Indian tribe, whose reservation is nearby.

The pipeline route stretches from North Dakota to Illinois.

(Source: Energy Transfer Partners)

The argument continues in federal courtrooms and in protests along the route, where hundreds have been arrested. Over the weekend, authorities even shot down a camera-carrying drone recording a demonstration and arrests.

What there isn't much of is the kind of two-sided peaceful discussion hosted Monday evening at SMU.

As a matter of numbers, the supporters at the forum said the new pipeline would be a technological marvel of its kind and that the average risk of death would be incredibly small, much smaller than, for instance, getting hit by lightning.

For the other side, the comparison would be more like living near a nuclear power plant. The average risk may be tiny, but if something happens and you are nearby, the individual effect could be bad, even if it's not deadly.

But the essential disagreements went far beyond data.

The forum was a co-production of SMU's William P. Clements Center for Southwest Studies and the Maguire Energy Institute. It was titled "Why Standing Rock matters; can oil and water mix?" Of the six people on the panel, two supported the pipeline and four represented tribal interests.

Here's how supporters see the dispute:

· The pipeline will be good for national energy interests and will provide jobs for the region.

· It's the best-designed, most advanced pipeline ever built.

· Pipelines are dramatically safer than trains and trucks. In 2014, only 5,000 barrels of petro products leaked out of a billion sent through pipes.

· Energy Transfer spent years going through all the required government processes needed to get permits.

"Pipelines are the safest form of transportation," said Mohamed Tayeb Benchaita, a Houston-based engineering consultant for the oil and gas industry. "It's cheap. It's affordable."

And here's the other side:

· Members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have a long and detailed list of reasons not to trust the U.S. government or major businesses. From treaties signed and violated to the murder of Sitting Bull not far south of where today's protests are being held to a dam that flooded much of the tribe's land, the Standing Rock Sioux have earned their skepticism.

· Whether or not the average risk is small, the specific risk if the pipeline goes bad is of great importance. The maximum risk of one truckload of oil is one truckload of spill. How much could be lost from a huge pipeline? And who gets to decide how much risk is acceptable?

· Whether or not the risk is small on paper, the land sacred to the Sioux is important for reasons that go beyond energy, water and money. And beyond what government archaeologists know what to look for.

· The long and detailed process that Energy Transfer has gone through did not take tribal interests and sovereignty into account.

"The white man is once again threatening our way of life," said Cody Two Bears, a Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Councilman.

About 200 people attended the event. Answers from the panel to questions from the audience showed how far apart the divide remains.

One question was about pipeline safety. The response from supporters was filled with numbers, data about how unlikely a pipeline failure is.

Craig Stevens, spokesman for a pro-pipeline group called Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now (MAIN), said the Dakota pipeline was designed so that even a tiny leak could be detected and the pipeline shut down in three minutes. (He did not, however, say how much oil could leak from the pipeline in those three minutes. According to projected daily flow data from Energy Transfer, an unlikely total blowout could release about 1,000 barrels of oil in that time.)

Taking part in a panel discussion about the Dakota Access pipeline at SMU were (from left) Eric Reed (Choctaw Nation), J.D., a Dallas lawyer who specializes in American Indian Law, Tribal Law, and International Indigenous Rights;
Mohamed Tayeb Benchaita, managing partner, B&G Products and Services, LLP; Michael Lawson, President of MLL Consulting and author of Dammed Indians Revisited: the Continuing History of the Pick-Sloan Plan and the Missouri River Sioux (2010); Kelly Morgan, Lakota Consulting LLC, which provides professional cultural and tribal liaison services in field archaeology; Craig Stevens, Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now (MAIN), a partnership aimed at supporting economic development and energy security benefits in the Midwest; Cody Two Bears, Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Councilman and tribal member representing Cannon Ball district, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe

(Jeffrey Weiss/Dallas Morning New)

Kelly Morgan, a field archaeologist for North Dakota-based Lakota Consulting LLC, was offended by the welter of numbers.

"Where is the human component?" she asked.

Science and engineering isn't the point, Two Bears said.

"Our teachings and ceremonies will tell us if the pipeline is safe," he said. "It's not no scientist. It's not no 'best technology.'"

The federal block on construction for a small section under the Missouri River is supposed to give government agencies a chance to evaluate whether American Indian concerns were taken properly into consideration. Meetings are planned through November. No date has been set for a decision.